I take away from research review the thought that Text and Visual Documents Methods may not be a methodology that easily suits my research area. Although I know it is a method that can allow for, not only direct documentation of ones work, but a media that provides for intense scrutiny of your subjects, I don’t know that, for instance, videotaping people-environment interactions in a room would be as effective as an observer (because of the monocular view of a fixed camera). It does seem, however, like photography or videography would be helpful in creating a behavioral map that can be superimposed onto architectural floor plans for analysis. Also, excerpts of those methods would be helpful to illustrate the findings of the research.
My interest is in exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course. My questions about this method as it might relate to my work might be the following: Would videotaped classroom experiences provide a more valid, or accurate basis of evaluation than person to class observations? Can discordant actions be quantified easier on tape and is the coding more accurate and verifiable? Are there classroom environments that work better, not because of their physical attributes, but because of a social acceptance of a traditional layout and can that preference be tested through a text and visual document method?
As it stands now, I see limited possibilities to employ this method, but the next steps to take would be to review what other researchers in my are of study have done and to continue to work on refining my research question.
The work I reviewed on the observation method was very helpful to me in conceiving my own research. The work of (Fresch 2005) concerning learning to read and write in first grade was important in that it highlighted for me a situation where longitudinal observations inform more that strictly quantitative testing over time. Indeed, in architectural journal literature, many studies of the relationship between humans and the environment are qualitative in nature and, more specifically, they involve observation methods.
In architectural practice, however, I found that when qualitative research was offered as a deliverable, we tend to use methods other than observation. For instance, we have produced POE’s (post-occupancy evaluations) as a design service for our clients. These documents usually consist of unmediated interviews and surveys of the actual building users to illuminate how the completed building is actually functioning in relation to its intended operation. They conclude with a list of recommendations for future buildings. My professional genre at the time was federal buildings (judicial centers, prisons and post offices). The US government reviewed the information in the attempt to fine-tune a building type, learn ways to design better and more cost effectively. Simple observations of the environment (and our subsequent evaluation of the observations) would not provide the direct accountability and first-hand ‘on-air’ experience evidenced in our interview and survey method (we produced our POE’s with a camera crew and voiceover talent so that our client received a video with paper documentation). This really speaks to the comment in our readings of suitability of methods – observation methods are often required to evaluate behavior; surveys look to clarify intention. So, I take away the notion of suitability of methods to support my own research interests. In addition, I now have examples of research where observations work well and studies where it is not an appropriate method.
Because of the connection of observation to architectural research, it seems likely to be important in my study. I’ve read that there are two common ways that observations are employed - “as a method to help define what was real for the participants in the study” and as a vehicle to help refine their research question. Therefore, from my Researcher's Notebook many questions emerge like, what is the existing classroom reality for college students? How is pedagogy or knowledge-based learning affected by the built environment and vice versa? What type of experience is most needed for the person(s) appropriate for conducting the observations – architectural, professorial, administrative or behavioristic? How does that inform the coding?
As it stands right now, there are many more possibilities than drawbacks for use of the observation method in my research because of its ability to illuminate experiential interactions and focus research, despite the opinion that it can be highly subjective.
The next step for me to check out the methodological possibilities of using observation is to put great effort in framing the research question. Also, more research review is needed to discover studies that try it explain or illuminate how a college student navigates the general lecture / private self-learning /availability of scaffolding resources/subgroup work/exterior resource functions within an open innovative classroom.
In my area of research, which is exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course, at first thought, I assumed that a strict quantitative measure (say test achievement) would demonstrate how physical elements enhance learning. However, after further research, I can see that focus group methods could illuminate much more of the findings than simple proficiency scoring. Also, the idea of using interview and focus groups would be beneficial to support classroom observation through triangulation.
There needs to be great attention paid to the makeup of the focus groups. Questions about this method might be: As a professor, I have had to deal with course (teacher) evaluations, so how can I ensure that focus groups consisting of students are useful and not petty, biased, apathetic, hateful, agenda-driven or spiteful? How can a research study on an effective classroom environment in New England be conducted using this method, so that the findings are universal?
Because of the benefits of a mixed-design methodology, stated previously, there are great possibilities of this method in my research. A challenge would be that the researcher would have to carefully consider the role and training of the facilitator in a focus group and how group dynamics can affect student responses in the groups. The next step that I need to take to consider this method is to perform due diligence in terms of exploring existing research in my area of study and developing and refining my research question.
No comments:
Post a Comment